Talk:List of lakes by depth

List of Continents
Wouldn't the use of Oceania (or less broadly Australasia) be more appropriate for the list of continents? This would of course vault Hauroko to the top position. Parodygm 14:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Error in list?
Salsvatn in Norway is 464m by the most conservative measurement. This would place it 17. on this list.Inge 11:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Crater Lake in Oregon has a maximum depth of 594m, based on its USGS benchmark surface elevation of 1883m. The US National Park Service publishes different values (1881m for surface elevation, and 592m for the maximum depth), but it's preferable to use the values determined by the USGS, the technical basis of which is documented by Bacon, et al. (2002) Morphology, volcanism, and mass wasting in Crater Lake, Oregon. GSA Bulletin 114:675-692. --Pkrnger (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Lake Pinatubo in the Philippines is now listed as having a depth of about 800meters, yet this entry lacks documentation. Scanning various news reports of this recently formed crater lake, I find that the depth of this lake is not likely any deeper than 85 meters. I suspect the Wikipedia entry for Lake Pinatubo of 800 meters is in error and thus this depth should be removed from the table of the world's deepest lakes until such time as bathymetry data for this lake can be verified. Pkrnger (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)PkrngerPkrnger (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oceania
I agree that the use of Oceania is more sensible than Australia, especially because in the list of lakes by depth, Haurako is colour-coded as being on the Australian continent, which of course it isn't. This creates ambiguity when in one list New Zealand is classed as being on the Australian continent, yet not on the other list. Ignorance.is.evil 12:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree: the problem is that Oceania is not a continent, it is a very vaguely defined geopolitical term unrelated to actual continental plates. And exactly which of the vague and conflicting definitions you use matters, because in some definitions Indonesia's South Sulawesi province (which is on the Oceanian side of the Wallace Line) is included, and the Sulawesian Lake Matano is very much deeper than New Zealand's Lake Hauroko. If you wish to stick to the conventional continents, then Australia is a continent, Indonesia is part of Asia, and New Zealand is a large off-shore island not part of any continent (sorry.) If we want to be more scientific, then New Zealand's North Island is part of the Australian tectonic plate, but South Island (on which we find Hauroko) is a different tectonic plate, the Pacific plate. -- Securiger (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lake Chelan
According to its article Lake Chelan should be on this list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC). I changed the 1,419 after following the second link in its article.

Baikal
Isn't siberia in the asian part of russia? Should the color code be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.104.170 (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Other deep lakes (not yet ranked)
These are some other deep lakes that could be added to the list after some further research. I've only included lakes deeper than 50 m, as a proper ranking of shallower lakes seems unlikely. I've also included some basic placeholder elements, for ease of copy-and-paste techniques. Rupert Clayton 20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

By maximum depth
convert with 449 m and 315 ft

sources added:

Europe
 * Lakes deeper than 50 m from the List of largest lakes of Europe
 * Lakes deeper than 50 m from List of lakes in Albania
 * Lakes deeper than 50 m from Category:Lakes of Armenia
 * Lakes deeper than 50 m from Category:Lakes of Austria
 * Lakes deeper than 50 m from Category:Lakes of Azerbaijan
 * English lakes in the Lake District over 50 m deep from List of lakes in the Lake District
 * Norwegian lakes over 200 m deep from List of lakes in Norway
 * Serbian lakes over 50 m deep from List of lakes in Serbia
 * Swedish lakes over 130 m deep from List of lakes in Sweden
 * Lakes deeper than 50 m from [List of lakes in Switzerland]] (in progress)

Africa
 * all lakes deeper than 50 m from the article Rift Valley lakes

Asia
 * Lakes deeper than 50 m from [List of lakes in Indonesia]] (in progress)

Oceania
 * New Zealand lakes over 50 m deep from the list of Lakes with an area of more than 10 km² in List of lakes in New Zealand

General
 * all lakes deeper than 50 m from the article Crater lake
 * additional info available from

Lake O'Higgins/San Martin
Given that sources refer to Lake O'Higgins/San Martin as having a maximum depth of 836 m, it would be useful to have additional references and statistical information on the world's 5th deepest lake. I have not been able to find information on it's average depth and volume, for example. Because of it's relatively large surface area and complex shorline, I suspect that the average depth of Lake O'Higgins/San Martin would be less than the 350m established for Crater Lake, in Oregon. --Pkrnger (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The authenticity of newspaper reports (in Spanish) cited in 2003 for the maximum depth of this lake should be scrutinized. My suspicions are based on the fact that other than subglacial Lake Vostok (which may be as low as 580 to 650 meters and as high as >900 meters depth), there is no other lake of glacial origin that comes close to the reported 836m maximum depth for Lake O'Higgins/San Martin. Furthermore, the statistical information about this lake is notably incomplete--Pkrnger (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A comparison of deepest lakes based on average depths
At the present time, based on a comparison of average depths among the deepest lakes of the world, Crater Lake, OR is the deepest lake in the Western Hemisphere, and it ranks as the third deepest in the world. Lakes Baikal and Tanganyika remain in first and second place, however.--Pkrnger (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That pesky Caspian Sea
There has been a bit of low-level controversy on the lake lists over time as to whether the Caspian Sea should be listed as a lake or as a sea (or perhaps an 'inland ocean'). The main voice advocating for keeping the Caspian out of the main lists (by depth, area, volume, etc.) has been Kwamikagami. His argument (if I can summarize it accurately) is that, geologically, the Caspian, like the Black, and Mediterranean seas, is a remnant of the ancient Tethys Ocean, which means it is very different from many lakes, that have formed through different geological mechanisms.

A counter-argument is that geographers, biologists and limnologist generally see the Caspian as a huge inland salt lake. It is endorheic (no outlet), and can be compared to other large (but still much smaller) endorheic salt lakes, such as the Aral Sea, Great Salt Lake and Lake Van. Another counter-argument is that many people's intuitive definition for a lake is an inland body of water, not connected to the world's oceans.

My feeling is that there is more benefit from including the Caspian in these lists (with an appropriate note pointing out that it's not lake-like in all respects) than in excluding it, or putting it in a list of its own. Among the arguments for inclusion is that most previous list of lakes (in other encyclopedias, etc.) do include the Caspian. The "separate list" option doesn't seem to be a good approach, as the point of a list is to allow easy direct comparisons. By including a detailed note on the differing definitions of "lake" we can encourage people to better understand that "lake" doesn't mean the same thing in all contexts.

The thoughts of other Wikipedia editors would be very welcome. I would like to try to achieve some consensus here before we get into any further reverting of these pages. Rupert Clayton (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the Ocean is also endorheic, that's hardly a factor. As for being able to be compared to lakes, it can also be compared to the Ocean. That's rather meaningless: it can be compared to the lakes on Titan, but that doesn't make it extraterrestrial. Because it is not clearly a lake, I think it appropriate to separate it out for clarity. This still allows easy direct comparison: It's on the same page and formatted with the same parameters. I'd also like to see refs that biologists and limnologists 'generally regard it as a lake'. I would think they would simply follow custom unless they were working on the geology. The only argument I see in favor of integrating it into the list is geographical / common usage; the argument for separating it is geological. To me at least, those seem to more or less balance out, and splitting the list in two but keeping everything on the same page reflects that.


 * It's also not true that the Caspian is universally counted as a lake in popular usage. 'Lakes by depth' is not a common comparison, but 'lakes by area' (what most people mean by one lake being bigger than another) is a common comparison, and even in popular usage the rankings ("X is the 4th largest lake" etc.) often only make sense if the Caspian is excluded. Splitting the list allows us to have it both ways.


 * As for limnology, you're forgetting oceanography. The Russian Acadamy of Sciences treats Caspian studies as oceanology, not limnology. At least, it's directed by the Caspian Branch of the P.P.Shirshov Institute of Oceanology. Consider also a couple articles on the Caspian published in the last couple issues of Oceanology: "Diatomaceous oozes of the Middle Caspian Sea" and "Hydrochemical studies in the Central and Southern Caspian Sea aboard R/V Issledovatel’ Kaspiya (October 2007) within the Framework of the Ecosystem Monitoring by the Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography and the Caspian Scientific-Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography". Then there's The Caspian Sea Environment, a series on environmental chemistry [!] that covers "the physical oceanography, marine chemistry and pollution, and marine biology of the Caspian Sea". The Caspian also appears to be considered oceanic by Iran and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Comission of UNESCO, which discuss "marine data" in the context of the Caspian and the Persian Gulf, but not in the context of the salt lake Urumia. kwami (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think our main criteria here should be "what's most useful to a person reading one of the list pages". That person could have various aims, and we need to consider a very wide background (lots of people with a general interest, and also various spoecialists). Accuracy of classification within certain specialties may have some relevance, too, but if they disagree, we still need to have some consistent approach we can use. You ask for references for limologists' and biologists' view that the Caspian is a lake. Jacob Kalff's, Limnology (Prentice Hall, 2001) has sections dedicated to both the Aral and the Caspian in Chapter 5. Hydrology and Climate. Biologists... hmm... I don't know for sure. I think they might be less concerned. Probably the endorheic character and salt levels have more significance for them than whether we define it as a sea or a lake.


 * My comment about comparing the Caspian to other lakes was simply because I suspect that's something many people visiting these pages will want to do. I accept that that does not settle whether the Caspian really is a lake by any definition. I do see a difference between listing the Caspian within the same ordered list as other lakes and placing it separately. The point of lists is to see characteristics, measurements, etc. in a sequence.


 * The significance of the lack of an outlet is that this is what distinguishes the Caspian from the Black Sea in common understanding. If a body of water is at essentially the same elevation as the oceans and connected to them by a free-flowing passage then it's a lot less "lakey".


 * It seems to me that the only discipline that generally views the Caspian as a sea or ocean is geology. I understand why that is (way back, it used to be an ocean), and I do think we should note that fact on these pages. But I don't see the lake lists as being particularly relevant to geologists. I would have thought the main audiences would be (1) general readers with a curiosity for the largest, deepest, etc. (2) people with some level of interest in limnology, (3) people with a general interest in one of the lakes mentioned. Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's one possible compromise solution: we keep the Caspian in the same list as the other large lakes, but don't include it in the rankings, i.e. we give it a blank cell where the other lakes have a number. We may need to do a little behind the scenes work to get sorting working right, but that might handle it's distinctive nature. Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You mention that there is a certain level of common perception that the Caspian is a lake, but you ignore one very major counterargument that uses exactly the same data--no one calls it the "Caspian Lake" and (at least in English) everyone calls it the "Caspian Sea". Most people would be taken aback to see the Caspian in a list of lakes, just as most people consider the tomato to be a vegetable rather than a fruit.  Common perception can be used to push both the "sea" and the "lake" agenda with respect to the Caspian.  Other arguments need to be pursued in terms of how to list that body of water in Wikipedia.  (Taivo (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC))


 * I actually think we should keep the rankings, because for people who do consider it a lake, that's important. I see the split as geology/oceanography/some public vs geography/limnology/other public. kwami (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd want at least a mention of the Caspian Sea. The List of lakes by area page seems like a reasonable way to do it. The List of islands by area takes a similar, but slightly different approach to the question of whether Australia is an island or not. There are lots of geographic terms that are defined in various ways and used loosely in general, and "lake" is one of them. I don't think it is useful to seek a strict standard definition of what is or isn't a lake. Common usage is loose. It doesn't matter that its name uses the word "sea" instead of "lake". By that logic the Salton Sea is not a lake. Nor is Great Pond in Maine, even though it is much larger than many things named "lake". There's a difference between the set of lakes and the set of things with the word "lake" in their name. Pfly (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I had been considering adding the Black, Med, & Ocean Seas for comparison. So you agree that we should make the Caspian somehow more distinct than a footnote? kwami (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Choice of colors for continents
We have what, off-pink ( #FFCCFF ) and off-salmon ( #FFCBCB )? Europa and Asia are very hard to tell apart at a glance, and ideally that is what you want when you color code things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapold (talk • contribs) 02:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All due respect to whoever created the table in current shape/info; however, I would rather prefer "the region" start with the continent and make it sortable. Any or table info is better than mere color coding. I hope you would agree. Сенко (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

E..g.:

Boesmansgat / Pozzo Del Merro
Bushman's Hole and Pozzo Del Merro, natural holes that reach around or beyond 1000 feet deep, both have mean depths that would be included on the list, but only if you ignore the rocks that are in the way before they widen out again. They are also ponds, not lakes, but that's more subjective. Still, having mean depths that are probably well over 500 feet probably deserves an honorable mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.30.115 (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of lakes by depth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604162338/http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/10-deepest-lakes-on-earth/1234 to http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/10-deepest-lakes-on-earth/1234

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)